Compare foods

Emu, flat fillet, raw vs Emu, full rump, raw

Original comparison by NutriVerdict

Bottom line: Emu, flat fillet, raw and Emu, full rump, raw score the same on nutrient density, 86 of 100.

Emu flat fillet and emu full rump both score 86 of 100 for nutrient density, so the two cuts trade off on specific numbers per 100 g. Flat fillet is lower in calories (102 vs 112) and fat (0.74 g vs 1.64 g), while full rump has slightly more protein (22.8 g vs 22.2 g) and notably less sodium (90 mg vs 150 mg).

Choose flat fillet when cutting fat and calories is the priority. Choose full rump when sodium intake needs to stay low, since flat fillet runs well above it at 150 mg per 100 g. Scores being tied at 86 means neither cut has an overall edge, so pick based on which number matters more to your diet.

Head to head, per 100 g

MetricEmu, flat filletEmu, full rump
Nutrient Density Score8686
Calories102 kcal112 kcal
Protein22 g23 g
Carbohydrate0 g0 g
Dietary fiber0 g0 g
Sugars0 g0 g
Total fat0.7 g1.6 g
Saturated fat0.2 g0.4 g
Sodium150 mg90 mg
Potassium240 mg330 mg
Calcium3 mg4 mg
Iron5 mg5 mg
Magnesium31 mg40 mg
Vitamin C0 mg0 mg
Vitamin A0 ug4 ug
Vitamin E0.2 mg0.2 mg
Cholesterol71 mg85 mg

Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain

Frequently asked questions

Which has more protein, Emu, flat fillet, raw or Emu, full rump, raw?

Emu, full rump, raw has more protein, 22.8 g per 100 g to 22.2 g.

Which has fewer calories?

Emu, flat fillet, raw is lower in calories, 102 kcal per 100 g to 112 kcal.

Full Emu, flat fillet profile Full Emu, full rump profile